Antoine Jacoutot writes: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:31:11PM +0100, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > > What's the policy for adding debug packages to ports? > > > > Is the intend to add debug packages... > > * eventually to all ports > > or > > * only to ports where they seem particularly useful? > > I think the policy is up for debate really. > Nothing has been decided yet. > My humble opinion is that "particularly useful" is subjective...
It would be more useful I think to make the ports and release build processes more approachable so that debugging symbols can be made available. If they need it, that is - I haven't had any real trouble beyond locating the correct documents to read and fumbling my way through. The reason being that including debugging symbols means you're, well, debugging. In the event that something bug-like is discovered debugging symbols will certainly make the stack traces sent to maintainers & developers more useful but a full OpenBSD build environment *right there* makes it easier to fix the bug where it was discovered and where that fix can be tested, resulting in not only a patch, but a *working* patch. When making things easier for people, I prefer to make it easier for people to make my work easier, not make it easier for them to just give me more work. Perhaps the enormous packages could have debug-symbol-filled variants but these days even that argument holds little water. I don't have the numbers to hand but the things which have traditionally had the worst build times - kernels, gcc, java, X, even firefox until they brought rust in to repair that oversight - now have build times measured in hours or minutes rather than weeks. tl;dr: grep -ri strip /usr/share/mk and, yes, read. No ";dr" for you. </tuppence> Matthew
